People have gotten so prejudiced about it being inaccurate (and it's valid to an extent) that they've forgotten that there is still some accurate info and that it can at least get you started on a subject. And let's not pretend some websites are perfect themselves or unbiased like one where at least there are numerous people patrolling to make changes. It's not something you should cite in a paper but not as bad as people make it out to be.
Finally, some one sees the truth. People, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT INACCURATE! They remove false things within a short period of time, and how many times have you honestly gotten incorrect information from Wikipedia?
The thing is that it's not written at a professional level (and on top of that by numerous people with different writing styles), many don't want to or are too lazy to cite sources while some people just aren't cracked up to write about a subject. This not to mention the trolls. But that's when your discretion takes over and you realize you're just getting a basic idea and you can go elsewhere for more in depth details. Wikipedia is quite convenient if not the highest quality, just like fast food. If you want something with more quality that's more fulfilling then you have to spend more time on it, just as with food.
The stigma mostly comes from people trying to use Wikipedia as a primary source when it clearly is not a primary source. However, they do back up a lot of their material with primary sources, which are cited at the bottom of each individual page.
Wikipedia changed the past decade or so. Editors actually decided to crack down on the so-called garbage and meme-ish topics and added standards and guidelines to the articles.
But not everyone does that, I've seen too many pages without much sourcing. Some pages are TOO informative and the list goes on. What started off as a great idea because it would allow people interested in subjects to write about their favorite subject it now not such a good thing. That said and like I said, it's underrated because you should know what you're getting and it's a great place to get started in trying to learn a subject.
I appreciate anything that doesn't require me to look and search for something in a giant encyclopedia. Internet, you have spoiled me.
The wikipedia article is for easy-to-read information. If you want a reputable source just click the references down below and read through those. I can't stand the lazy, "ANYBODY CAN EDIT ANYTHING SO ITS NOT ACCURATE" bull**** that teachers throw out every time there is a project that needs sources.
Like I said, as far as sources go, it's the equivalent of fast food. You know you're not getting gourmet but it's quick and easily accessible and can at least get you started on a subject. Really, it's the academics and editors which need to stop being prudes about it and see it for what it is. No one is saying it should be the most valid source on anything and in the case of a research paper, it shouldn't be your only source obviously but it's still useful.
Wikipedia may not be "inaccurate" but the editors are clearly biased on certain subjects. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...olitical-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html Editors are also predominantly male. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/nati...pedia-editors-arent-doing-much-editing/56736/ The data can and is manipulated for profit constantly. Sure it is usually remedied quickly, but that doesn't change the fact that the information is inaccurate for short periods of time, and you have no idea if and when that occurs if you are not an editor. So what you are looking at at any given moment, could be manipulated data. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57...wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/ I love Wikipedia, but I also completely understand it's weaknesses.
I get annoyed when the footnotes lead to no sources. I also don't like it when technical topics seem like a direct rip from a study textbook. technical worrying us fine but going directly into the details without context doesn't scream accessibility.
